[B-Greek] Re: QEOS and KURIOS : a strange choice of words?

furuli at online.no furuli at online.no
Tue Sep 16 01:39:26 EDT 2003


Dear Jason,

I do not think I have much more to add to this thread, except the points below.

The manuscripts at our disposition tell us that KS was used as 
substitute for YHWH both in NT and LXX manuscripts from the 2nd 
century C.E. and that YHWH /IAW was used in LXX manuscripts before 
that time; the latest witness of the use of YHWH in a LXX manuscript, 
of which I am aware, is a fragment of Job 42:11,12 from the first 
part of the 1st century C.E. (See The Oxyrynchus Papyri vol 58 
(1983), entry 3522).  The manuscripts do not tell us whether the NT 
autographs used KURIOS  or YHWH.  My purpose has not been to reveal 
some secret knowledge,  but simply to point out that two of the three 
lines of arguments that were used 50 years ago (and still are used by 
some) in favor of KURIOS in the NT	autographs no longer have any 
force.

When you quote a text, you try to reproduce every detail. The NT 
writers sometimes quoted or cited a Hebrew text and other times the 
LXX.  Their technique of citing/quoting was somewhat different from 
ours (they may in some cases have had a different Vorlage though). 
Sometimes they quoted/cited a Hebrew text where YHWH was found, and 
other times they quoted a LXX text with the tetragrammaton.  But as 
far the evidence goes, they never quoted an OT text with KURIOS. The 
time aspect which is behind argument 2, shows that my words are not 
dishonest. Argument 2 was that the LXX in the first part of the 1st 
century contained KURIOS, and therefore the writers used KURIOS  in 
the NT. This is as far as we know wrong.

So the question is: What did the NT writers do when they found YHWH 
or IAW in their Vorlage? The most natural thing was to use the name 
in their manuscripts. And why should they not do that?  The Masoretes 
(600-1000 C.E.) substituted YHWH with 'ADONAY, and it has been taken 
for granted that this was already done in pre-Christian times. But 
the evidence in favor of this is lacking, and there is even evidence 
against it. Linguistically speaking, the substitution of YHWH/IAW 
with KURIOS would be quite dramatic, because YHWH/IAW is a proper 
name and KURIOS is an appellative. Because different individuals are 
referred to as KURIOS, the use of it could confuse the reference of 
the person bearing the name YHWH (and this is certainly the case in 
the NT). So there had to be strong reasons behind such a 
substitution, and the evidence for this is lacking.

The fact that YHWH is not found in any extant NT  manuscripts is a 
strong argument against its inclusion in the NT autographs. However, 
this is substantially weakened by the fact that the old NT 
manuscripts (2nd century C.E.) neither contain KURIOS but just KS. 
Some kind of substitution must have occurred between the autographs 
and these manuscripts. There is no need of a conspiracy theory here, 
we only need to keep in mind that the Jews at some point  (70 C.E. at 
the latest) viewed the name as ineffable and were afraid of 
pronouncing it, and that namelessness of God was an old teaching of 
Plato which spread through Hellenization.  This could have influenced 
LXX and NT manuscripts. Pointing in another direction is the argument 
used by some that the view of Jesus as God, which became fully 
expressed in the 4th and 5th centuries, already was expressed by 
Jesus or in the presentation of Jesus by the evangelists. If this is 
true, it would argue in favor of KURIOS  in the autographs.

Whatever is the case, the evidence that we have today corroborates 
the words of G. D. Kilpatrick, which he expressed in 1971 in 
connection with the publication of P Fouad 266 by F. Dunand. 
Kilpatrick mentioned the period between 70 and 135 C.E. and pointed 
to three important changes that occurred in this period, 1)  the 
change from scroll to codex, 2) the tetragrammaton was replaced by 
KURIOS, and 3) the nomina sacra were introduced ( Kilpatrick, G. D. 
(197)1. Etudes de Papyrologie Tome Neuvieme, La Caire, Imprimiere de 
L'Institut Francais d'Archaéologie Orientale, pp. 221,222.)


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


>I want to express slightly an opposite opinion.
>
>1) The LXX that we have use KURIOS, so to say that point two is plain wrong
>is dishonest. Obviously, the LXX *does* substitute KURIOS for /YHVH/. This
>statement does not necessarily imply that the *earliest* copies of the LXX
>had KURIOS, but there is no reason to say that *all* of the earliest
>retained the Tetragrammaton. You cannot call the point *wrong,* but
>unprovable.
>
>2) If there were some "maligning" of the text going on, to what motive can
>it be attributed? Do you think early Christians sat around and said, "Let's
>incorporate heresies. I think we should get rid of God's name!"
>Motive - it is the deciding factor when looking into text criticism. Would
>changes be accidental? If not, how can they be explained?
>
>Much can be put forward in this debate, but it is surely OFF TOPIC, so this
>is my only (brief) post about it. Just let it be rested that people do not
>and will not agree on this. It is too much the basis of "I know more than
>you do" and "I have discovered some secret knowledge" cults. So, I stand
>opposed to it.
>
>Regards,
>Jason
>
>****
>Missouri Southern State University (student)
>Joplin Hebrew Reading
>Joplin, MO
>http://www.hareplay.com
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list